So Was That "The Roberts Surprise" Or Is It Now "RobertsCare"?

What do the President of the USA, the putative nominee for the GOP and the Chief Justice of the United States all agree with? The legality of an individual mandate under their jurisdiction. People are confused:

Roberts' action Thursday was enough to send right-wing commentators into a frenzy. What had happened to the man who was expected to use his chief justice clout to corral reliable conservative majorities? The Daily Caller's Neil Munro said "Robert's decision to side with progressives is a disappointment for conservatives. He was nominated by President George W. Bush, and was expected to be a reliable advocate for small government." At the National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy opined that it was "intolerable for the Supreme Court to aid and abet Congress and the president in the commission of a massive fraud."

That is funny. I was not aware that the upholding of the Constitution was a massive fraud but that is what you get when you don't know much about how law works including how little you know about how law works. I don't see any promise to partisanship here. Maybe this is how the log jam of red-blue breaks. At a certain point, the duty to the nation has to carry at least 60% of the vote. You do, after all, have to be a patriot in the cause of something other than self.

Feeds

Search

Articles

Pick any day's tunes as heard on CBC Ottawa's All in a Day hosted by my personal emailing buddy, Brent Bambury. You won't find a better music selection on radio anywhere - certainly not on the deeply dowdy CBC.

From Jan to March 2006, I tried a group humour blog with others on the subject of Canadian politics. It did not last but the posts were worth keeping. #16 was banned. There were no comments. It was at www.shadowcabinet.ca.